Whether the 'capable of repetition, yet evading review' doctrine requires plaintiffs in election law cases to predict and articulate specific plans for their own future electoral participation or whether it is sufficient that the challenged law will continue to affect voters and candidates in future elections

A controversy is “capable of repetition, yet evading review,” and therefore not moot, if (1) the challenged action is in its duration too short to be fully litigated before cessation or expiration; and (2) there is a reasonable expectation that the same co mplaining party will be subject to the same action again. Weinstein v. Bradford , 423 U.S. 147, 149 (1975). The question presented is: Whether the “capable of repetition, yet evading review” doctrine requires plaintiffs in election law cases to predict and articulate specific plans for their own future electoral participation, as four courts of appeals have held, or whether it is sufficie nt that the challenged law will continue to affect voters and candidates in future elections, as eight courts of appeals have held.